I have trouble trying to figure out what odds I need to set mine when hands are multiway. I generally use the 20x rule online when heads up but I don't know how to apply it accurately multiway. Here's an example:

Effective stack sizes $200

3 limpers, Hero limps BTN 2 2, BB shoves all-in for $20, 2 callers, Hero folds

Using the 20x rule I need to be able to get $360. While villains have about $400 combined, isn't it overly optimistic to assume both will get stacked?

What do you guys generally do to figure out if you have odds to setmine or play SC in multiway pots?

I use 15+ for set mining and 20+ for SC's. I don't really adjust for HU or multi - that may be wrong however.

You have to fold here, implied odds to draw for a set in a hand like this would exist if you knew one of the limp/callers had AA and couldn't fold a flop. However, this isn't true.

You are getting ~3:1 to call with position but you have 22, it isn't going to flop well the vast majority of the time and you will not get paid out enough when you hit a set to justify calling.

How do I determine a threshold for when I will get paid enough to set mine?

I'm thinking that I will try to adapt the 20x rule by considering the largest player's stack then valuing each additional player's stack with a modifier of 1/3-1/2. So in this situation, I would be looking at 10x + 5x = 15x and would fold. (200/18 is about 10 and 200/18 x 1/2 is about 5)

You can't really add together the villain's stacks into the equation, because they won't be likely to pay you off unless they hit something good, especially in a protected pot with one player all in.

The threshold for set mining has been debated on this forum. Bart Hanson recommends 10x. i.e raise to $12. You need to be able to make 10x12=$120 to call profitably.

Where does that $120 come from? 2 different places - direct pot odds + implied odds.

Direct pot odds - UTG raises to $12, gets 5 callers, and you're on the button - you're getting direct odds of 6:1 ($72 in pot:your $12) for a call. If all 6 players are all in for their last $12, you're not getting the correct odds to call to set mine (unless you think your pocket pair is the best and will hold up, in which case you're no longer set mining)


Implied pot odds - UTG raises to 10, with 200 behind. It folds to you on the button. UTG will never ever fold his overpair to any raise. You have 210 dollars. If you put 10 in the pot, you have the potential to win the 10 in the pot + the 200 he has behind if you hit your set.

In general, you will often get an open + 2 or 3 callers by the time it gets to you. I would not count on the callers paying you off in order to get the correct odds, as they are often "mining" against the original raiser as well. So I count the money in the pot and the money the original raiser has behind in order to determine if it is profitable to call.

Very general example - Original raiser opens to $20 with 140 behind, gets 3 calls and you are on button with mid-pair. Now there is 80 in the pot (4:1) + 140 behind (7:1) = 11:1 so profitable to call. If original raiser only has $20 behind, it is not profitable to call even if the 3 other callers each have 200 behind.


Sorry if the explanation's too basic, but that's a general outline of my approach to a multiway situation.

95 percent of live players have no idea of stack size and implied odds. they don't care. they have a pocket pair and they are going to call. after all they have a pair and you have AK .. all the time.

just like the implied odds with making a flush - there can be $2 in the pot, i bet $1M and the majority of $1/$2 players will call with their flush draw.

you just don't get a whole lot of pocket pairs ... so it is even harder to lay them down.

It's all about making 10x vs the pf raiser--those are where the implied odds come form. People commonly make the mistake that they can make money from the field players that call--that's not where you stack people when flopping a set.

Bart

Thanks for the replies, they were really helpful. About a week ago I started listening to DeucePlays starting from the first episode so it's pretty cool to have Bart post.

Not valuing field players' stacks (or very lightly valuing them) makes more sense after you guys point that out. Adding direct odds to raiser's implied odds is what I'll be doing from now on.

And I think 10x is too generous. The set won't always hold up and it seems like stacking the other player happens the minority of the time. So if I have a 10% shot at flopping my set I want 15x-20x odds, closer to 15x IP and closer to 20x OOP. It's probably different at the higher limits where there is more aggressiveness but at the passive 1/2 tables I really need 15x-20x.

On a side note, I think set mining is overrated in the sense that people lose sight of the simpleness of it and misplay the hand alot. They think about turning it into a semi-bluff and sometimes wonder if the PP alone is good enough, even if the original goal was to just set mine. People also don't lay it down enough even if it's obvious they are beat.

I think multi-way with an all-in is a bit different than simply multi-way in a raised pot (where the raise is giving us << the 20x we'd like). With the all-in protecting the pot, it might be a little more less likely that we're going to stack someone (cuz it will be a little less believeable that anyone is bluffing at the pot). In the standard multiway case, it is of course very unlikely that we're going to stack 2+ players, but that's not the goal; we can get more dead money into the pot (usually on the flop) in a multiway situation, plus there are simply more players that can hit a second best hand, making the chances of stacking a single person much more likely.

In this situation, I'd probably call, which might be a bit loose. Also depends on the callers; if they are loose pay off station monkeys, then super easy call IMO, but if they are tight fit/fold, then meh. But we also have position, and methinks there's a fairly decent chance we might see a free turn card.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I disagree with both points.

I think 10x is far too thin in a HU situation: barely covers needed implied odds, raiser simply isn't going to stack off every time we hit, we could still hit and lose (which will most likely be our whole stack), plus times where we spew money on a street or two thinking our pair is good.

I also think we make more than enough money from the field players when we flop a set; the more multiway it is, the more I'm likely to try to setmine when getting nowhere near the implied odds I'd usually like against the raiser.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I think you may be overestimating a bit here, but as I said earlier, there is a wide variety of debate on the correct rules of thumb for mining with PP's, suited connectors, and suited one-gappers.

The odds of flopping a set/quads are 1 in 8.5. The problem, as you realize, is getting paid off - i.e. raiser has AK and whiffs, or KK and you flop set but there is an A on the board - or getting beat by an overset or flush/straight, etc. That's where the debate comes in - how much more than 1:8.5 mining odds do you need to compensate - 1:10, 1:15, 1:20? Obviously, there's no correct answer. You know your games best, but I'd say that 1:20 is on the high side, imo.

Very true. I know that I for sure have gone through this, and *mostly* have this leak under control.

Even if 20x is a bit on the high side (I don't think it is), it is probably a lot closer to correct than 10x. I mean 10x, really? That's 1.5 more bets. That's going to make up for all the times we hit a set and don't get paid off 8x? Not even remotely close, IMO.

If anyone was curious, the 2 villains ended up stacking off with two pair and a 2 hit the flop. If only the BB hadn't shoved with his 44 I would have tripled up >_<

20x sounds as insane to me as 10x sounds to you. If 20x is the standard for online play, there's no freakin way it's appropriate for live--live players pay off way more eagerly.

I generally use 10x (basically because I heard it from Bart) but, without a DB or some great records, I guess there's no way to tell for sure. I usually have a very tight image, so I've been thinking of shading it up to 13-15x.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't get how 10x can be remotely close. If we use something just *slightly* lower of 8.5x that would mean we would have to be paid off / win / never spew when missing EVERY single time; and 10x is just slightly bigger than that. No?

ETA: I'm also talking about the HU situation; obviously the more multiway it is the more I'm dropping this number due to immediate odds and increased likelihood of someone (not necessarily the raiser) paying me off.

This is exactly my thinking too. Assuming we stack off every time and never lose, we need 8:1 odds to setmine. So going for the slightly higher 10:1 odds seems silly. Again, my experience is only at 1/2, I can't speak for any other levels.

I disagree that 1/2 players are easier to stack off. 1/2 players are more stationy than usual but are so passive that this gets offset a bit. Online players are the opposite; they are less stationy but more aggressive. 2/5 and 5/10 might be the perfect balance of station/aggression where 10:1 odds to set mine works great.

I wonder if there is a significant difference between socal and other places because at the 2/3 games I play in (and the 3/5, 5/5, and 5/10ss games I've played in) going multiway and getting payed off are almost a given

Ya, multiway (especially very multiway) is a different animal and getting payed off is pretty much a given. I'm simply saying 10x is way too thin in a heads up case.